Lord Rooker: My Lords, this issue has been debated at every stage of the Bill. It is good to report, although I accept that it never goes far enough, that our timetable for producing regulations on wild animals in circuses is now 2008—it used to be 2010—as a result of pressure from the Committee of your Lordships' House.
	As we just heard in the past two minutes, many people feel very strongly about this issue. Since the issue was last discussed in Grand Committee—I believe in July—the Defra working group, chaired by Mike Radford, the academic lawyer with extensive knowledge of welfare issues, has started work. The group is gathering and reviewing relevant available scientific evidence on the welfare needs of non-domesticated animals in environments comparable with a circus. It plans to report its findings early next year, and our aim is that draft regulations should go to consultation towards the middle of next year, with the aim of being brought into force in April 2008. That is two years earlier than originally planned. We cannot produce all the regulations at once. That is simply impossible. The resources are not there, and there must be prioritisation. Indeed, the priorities have changed as a result of pressure from Parliament.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, proposes a total ban with exemptions, but we believe that Clause 12 is sufficiently wide to enable us to achieve through secondary legislation the result that she seeks. There is no reason why a Clause 12 regulation could not achieve the same result as a ban with exemptions. I therefore do not rule out a total ban. I would not do so. Nor do the Government; Ben Bradshaw, the Minister concerned, made that absolutely clear. However, having asked a group of professional people to look at this, it would not make sense to pre-empt their findings or those of the subsequent public consultation on the issue. By definition, there will be a public consultation because of the regulations. I have been on the receiving end of many representations—indeed, I have made them myself—and we have given a commitment to ban the use of certain non-domesticated species in travelling circuses and to ensure that the standards that are applied to zoo premises are applied to permanent circus premises, provided that that is appropriate. We have begun, as I say, examining the available evidence with affected and interested parties. The Bill is enabling and a lot of the work will done by secondary legislation which becomes highly targeted and more detailed than can be put in a Bill. We have progressed from the point that we reached in Grand Committee, and I therefore hope that the provision will be acceptable to the House. We have moved the timing priority considerably. There is no question but that the objective sought in this amendment can be achieved under the Bill.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The objective sought cannot be achieved under the Bill, which is exactly why I have moved my amendment. Although it is good that the priority has moved, the Minister has not reassured me that the emphasis has changed one bit. He said that there is no reason why the Bill could not achieve the objective, but, equally, there is no guarantee that it will be achieved without the change proposed in the amendment.
	I thank all noble Lords who have supported me. I will carefully read the Minister's explanation about the different working groups—although I am not sure that he gave the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, a full answer on what they would address. I will consider the position between now and Third Reading. I believe that the mood of the House is that the amendment is modest and merely trying to be more specific about the remit of the working group in pointing it to improving welfare standards. The Minister said, crucially, that the equalisation between zoo and circus facilities would apply to circus permanent facilities. However, I was talking about circus travelling facilities. So I fear that the reply is lacking in that respect. I will bear all those points in mind for Third Reading. I hope that, in the mean time, the Minister will give us a fuller reply on the exact remit of the working groups.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this amendment concerns an entirely different area of animal keeping and I return to the keeping of game birds for egg production, which I raised in Committee. As I explained then, I am of course aware that there are strict regulations in place specifying the minimum size of cages for chickens for egg laying production. The European prohibition of conventional battery cages for egg laying hens is due to come into force in 2012, under Council Directive 1999/74. However, there are no binding specifications for cages for game birds. Although these birds are brought in from the wild and then kept for egg production—albeit for a limited period of time—there is still no reason why there should be such a double standard for the conditions in which they are kept.
	When I raised this issue in Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said:
	"We share the concerns of the League Against Cruel Sports, Animal Aid and the British Association for Shooting and Conservation over the use of caged systems, and want to ensure that anything used to house game birds provides appropriate welfare for the birds".—[Official Report, 24/5/06; col. GC 214.]
	I thank her for that statement. I am sure that the Minister and his team will have had further discussions about this issue and I hope that a statement will be forthcoming today. If welfare is at the core of the Bill at Clause 9 but the battery cages for game birds fail to meet its requirements on several counts, it would be very unfortunate.
	Here again we are slightly in the territory that lies between what is a farmed animal and what is a wild animal. For example, the normal behaviour patterns in pheasants include flight and running territorially and, obviously, those are all severely curtailed by cages. Pain, injury, disease and suffering are all the more likely in battery cages and all kinds of abnormal behaviour might be caused by them.
	I have slightly adapted the amendment I tabled in Committee so that Amendment No. 6 is more in line with the wishes of the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. He said in Committee that I was trying to put something specific in the Bill and that,
	"if by doing so she is ensuring that government powers are to be circumscribed in this area, on these Benches we would have rather more sympathy with that effort".—[Official Report, 24/5/06; col. GC 213.]
	I hope that the amendment will now satisfy a little more the requirements of the noble Duke.
	I have tabled the amendment so that I might ask the Minister some very specific questions in order to throw light on his discussions on this very important topic. Has his department looked at the Danish law on minimum spacing for game birds in egg production? Can he confirm that the last outbreak of Newcastle disease in the south of England was from caged birds? How many game farmers who use cages are not members of the Game Farmers' Association? Which does he think is the better system—open flock pens or battery cages? Will he rule out reference to the Farm Animal Welfare Council by the working group as, of course, game birds do not count as farmed animals? What information does he have on the length of time partridges are kept in cages? Can he confirm that the only motive for using battery cages is to reduce costs for game farmers and the large commercial shoots?
	As to that last point, most shoots of course do not use battery cages; most are small businesses using traditional practices and manage the land to the great benefit of biodiversity. I am not addressing here the vast majority of the shooting industry, which I think both economically and environmentally bring large benefits to the countryside; I am addressing only a handful of very large egg producers using battery cages. If that practice spreads, it is likely to bring the industry into disrepute. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this is another area in which I can report a modest amount of progress to the House. Under the previous timetable for regulations and codes, no commitment whatever was made for game birds, whereas a commitment now exists for a code of practice by the end of 2009. That is a direct result of pressure from your Lordships' Grand Committee.
	I have not seen the photographs to which my noble friend Lord Christopher referred, so I do not know whether, as the noble Earl said, it is an urban myth—it could well be so. An astonishing number of birds is released each year. The figure is between 20 million and 35 million. Around 40 per cent of pheasants for rearing come from France as eggs or day-old chicks. There is a small trade in six-to-eight-week-old poults. Approximately 90 per cent of redleg partridge are imported, the majority from France, but some also from Spain and Poland. The question of rearing practices for birds released as game birds therefore goes outside the country. I hope that my update is to the noble Baroness's satisfaction: the Government have looked at this issue closely since Grand Committee.
	We are sympathetic towards the purpose of the amendment—there is no question about that—but it is mistake to insert the new clause simply because it is too inflexible. We intend to introduce a code of practice for game bird-rearing within the next two years, but to require it to be established within 18 months of the enactment of the Bill will certainly pre-empt the results of the game bird research which has been commissioned by Defra to inform the code. We want the code to be based on evidence.
	There is little scientific evidence about what is required for good game bird welfare, including minimum space requirements, but the Game Conservancy Trust is conducting research into the use of certain practices as management tools. As the noble Earl, Lord Peel, indicated in Grand Committee, the Farm Animal Welfare Council intends to study the breeding and rearing of game birds, including the use of the raised laying units to which reference was made. It will report back to us in the summer of 2008. Those results will be far too close to the 18-month deadline set by the amendment to enable us to draft the code.
	In some ways, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, hit the nail on the head. The code is needed. While there might be a shortage of scientific evidence, a lot of good practical knowledge exists about welfare in rearing game birds. We are talking about a scale of release of between 20 million and 35 million and a large expansion in production, as clearly indicated by the price going through the floor. Game birds are more widely available in butchers' shops than was the case when most of us were a lot younger. Certainly, people on my side of the road could not afford them.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that overall very positive reply. Since the start of the Bill, as he has explained, Defra has concentrated on this issue, thought much further about it and now has a date to propose. However, he did not answer my specific question whether the Farm Animal Welfare Council was the suitable place to discuss this matter. I do not believe that pheasants fall under the category of farm animals—

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I apologise that my three amendments have come in a row. I hope your Lordships are not bored of hearing my voice yet.
	This amendment goes to the very heart of how we believe the Bill will either be a success and produce really adequate tools when the Government produce the various codes on which it will rely or whether it will be inadequately drafted and therefore not able to do that.
	The amendment seeks further to define under Clause 9 the sort of animal that is being dealt with when, for example, taking into account the need for a suitable environment. In debating Amendment No. A1 we made passing reference to degrees of domestication. Where the animal is a long-time domestic companion to man, such as a cat or a dog, it is fairly easy to judge whether its needs are met against all the criteria in the clause. We are used to their needs, which have been known over time, and it will be clear when somebody is failing to provide a suitable diet or environment, for example. However, at the other end of the spectrum are those animals that have never fallen within the definition of "domesticated" and might be wild, caught animals. We debated in Committee the issues of wild, caught birds and of primates. The needs of those creatures will be vastly different.
	In Committee the Minister did not seem to accept the need for any differentiation. Having thought about the issue and worked on it over time, I believe much more strongly than I did that this amendment is absolutely essential to the adequate functioning of the Bill. My amendment will ensure that in the codes for non-domesticated species that are kept as pets—we have not been offered codes for them in the Bill—the fact that they are essentially wild or semi-domesticated animals will have to be taken into account.
	An episode that highlighted this vital distinction for me was when the Minister's team of advisers was debating this issue with, I believe, the RSPCA. One of the team commented that there was no difference in welfare needs between domesticated horses and zebras. Self-evidently, there is a difference. Zebras have never been used to domestication of any sort. They have not been selected for generations to be comfortable with human company. Their needs under the five freedoms, especially the need to exhibit natural behaviours, will therefore be much more difficult to satisfy in a domestic setting than, say, those of a horse.
	My amendment does not say that domestication should be the only consideration for welfare needs—far from it. But there is a growing body of scientific backing to suggest that the needs of non-domesticated species will be different in terms of type and/or scale from those of domesticated animals. For example, in 2002, data produced by Mr Edward Price pointed to the conclusion that the single most important effect of domestication on behaviour is reduced emotional reactivity or responsiveness to fear-invoking stimuli—that is in scientific-speak. Evidently, if one has small children banging their drums, the family dog is unlikely to react because it is probably pretty used to it. However, if a fairly fragile animal has recently been imported into the household from essentially a wild background, it certainly will react. It will not have the room to flee from what it finds a frightening situation, therefore the requirement under Clause 9 to provide "a suitable environment" would not be met.
	The needs of African grey parrots are substantially greater than those of most domesticated species; for example, budgerigars. A parrot in captivity is routinely denied two of its most fundamental natural behaviours: flying long distances and socialisation. Research by Engbretson published this year by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare suggests that denying a bird vocal, visual and physical contact with its conspecifics can contribute to abnormal behaviour and stereotypy. These birds normally congregate in large flocks.
	You can see that I am no scientist, but the point I am getting at is that no amount of human contact can make up for the fact that these animals are being denied their normal behaviour, and therefore their needs would be unlikely to be met under Clause 9 if you could take into account the degree of domestication, because it is a key concept in assessing suitability of environment. Indeed, in preparing this amendment, the concept of domestication has very helpfully already been detailed in the guidance notes to the 2002 amendment to the Zoo Licensing Act 1981, so the Government have already considered the question of degree. Five categories are set out, ranging from true domestic breeds to true wild species. The work has been done on this. It is not as if the Government have to start from scratch; they have definitions they can choose to use.
	The Bill is not an exercise in artistic draftsmanship, and those who come to interpret it really need to be able to appreciate and put into practice the difference in the standard of care required by best practice to cater particularly for non-domesticated species. Noble Lords who were here for the discussion in Committee on the keeping of primates as pets, for example, will have appreciated it. I will not rehearse any of the arguments I used then, because of course we are on Report. All I am asking the Government to do now is to recognise that there will have to be a very careful interpretation of the Bill, and to protect those most vulnerable animals that I believe they are as interested in protecting as I am. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I confirm that that is the case. I assure the noble Baroness that we consider the matter to be covered by the Bill. As we have not convinced the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, before I use my set piece I shall address the seductive point that she raised regarding the Zoo Licensing Act, on which I have taken advice.
	The noble Baroness said that the Zoo Licensing Act provided a list of domesticated and non-domesticated animals. This list, however, is not an authoritative statement. The guidance is explicit—the list is the department's informal view of what animals might be classed as wild animals for the purpose of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 (as amended). Under this legislation "wild animals" means animals not normally domesticated in Great Britain. It was felt necessary to provide this guidance to aid authorities in determining what types of establishment might require a zoo licence under the 1981 Act. For example, a collection of animals consisting entirely of types normally domesticated in Great Britain is not a zoo within the meaning of the Act. This list was not drawn up to highlight welfare differences between the species mentioned. Indeed, the Secretary of State's Standards of Modern Zoo Practice guidance is equally clear that the welfare needs of animals in zoos can be met by adhering to the five freedoms drawn up for livestock by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, which are broadly reflected in the five welfare needs as highlighted in this clause.
	The amendment seeks to add a further paragraph to Clause 9. Its central aim is to instruct a court that in considering whether a welfare offence has been committed it should have regard to the degree of domestication of an animal. We do not think that the amendment is necessary because these issues will be dealt with by a court as appropriate under the legislation as drafted.
	The special needs of some animals kept by man were discussed at length in Grand Committee. We were all agreed that different animals have different needs and therefore required different kinds and degrees of care. We also debated amendments that sought to instruct the courts to take into account whether an animal was non-domesticated. I confirm to one noble Baroness and reassure the other that whether an animal is of a kind commonly regarded as domesticated or non-domesticated will be an inherent consideration in ascertaining what its needs are under Clause 9(2), for the purpose of determining whether its needs have been met. It is entirely appropriate for a court to take that into account.
	It would be unacceptable to seek to ascertain a non-domesticated animal's needs without having regard to the fact that they are of a species that is not commonly domesticated in the British islands, where this is relevant. However, it will not always be relevant, and it could therefore be a mistake to require a court always to have regard to it. For example, if a prosecution was brought because an owner failed to provide water for their animal, the amendment would require the degree of domestication of the animal to be taken into account, even though that is not relevant. All animals need water, and a failure to provide water for an animal for which you are responsible would breach the offence, whether or not the animal is domesticated. To this extent, the amendment could cause confusion and legally be a problem. I assure the House that the clause as drafted does allow the courts to contemplate "degrees of domestication"—it is for the court to decide—as one of the circumstances in deciding whether the offence has been breached.
	By highlighting the degree of domestication, the amendment risks narrowing the clause by implication, because that factor and not others is mentioned. There is potentially a really serious problem in seeking to limit the clause in this way. It should also not be assumed that non-domesticated species necessarily have more complex needs than domesticated species; they are clearly different. The regulations and codes of practice that we produce will provide greater clarity about what is required for particular types of animal, including non-domesticated species. The codes will provide, if necessary, any additional guidance that may be needed to ensure the welfare of non-domesticated animals.
	If necessary, there is a power in Clause 12 to make regulations setting specific requirements with regard to a particular animal's needs, so it is covered in the Bill in a double lock. Clause 9 makes it implicit and inherent that the needs will be taken into account by the courts. In Clause 12, there is the power to make regulations setting a specific requirement with regard to a particular animal's needs. What exactly constitutes the appropriate welfare standard will vary according to the circumstances, and the Bill already requires the courts to consider all the circumstances.
	After careful consideration and scrutiny by Parliament, we have formulated a clause that is as flexible and as capable as possible of addressing the needs of all types of animals—we are concerned about them all—for which a person may be responsible in the many different circumstances that may arise. The flexibility is needed for the courts to do their job so that, if you like, those who wish not to treat animals properly cannot find legalistic loopholes in a clause that is drafted a bit too narrowly because it does not allow the courts to look at all the circumstances. On that basis, I sincerely urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am on the side of the goldfish. Our tradition of giving goldfish as prizes at funfairs will and should continue. We are doing nothing in the Bill to abolish it. We are on the side of the funfairs giving goldfish as prizes, to be looked after well—in bigger bags, maybe. The containers are much better now than they were in the past. The leaflet is crucial; giving it with the prize is absolutely fundamental. It is important that the welfare of the goldfish is taken into account. It is not a question of do what you like. I do not think the Showmen's Guild would support any of its members promoting anti-welfare practices by offering unsuitable containers and not giving good advice to the youngsters who win the prizes. Long may that continue.
	There is a technical difficulty. If the amendment were accepted, it would mean double standards. They would be lower in funfairs than in pet shops. But there is no issue as long as the welfare of the goldfish is considered. No offence will be committed, so the tradition can continue, and there is nothing in the Bill knocking that out. I do not see it as a problem, but I am grateful to my noble friends for raising the issue today and in Grand Committee. As I told my noble friend Lord Bilston the other day, officials in my private office in Defra still talk about the debate we had in Grand Committee. They remember the day with joy. I hope that that will be acceptable to my noble friends.
	This issue and Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 have already been debated. Amendment No. 11 would remove subsection (5)(a), which covers competitions that are not held face-to-face but which are in magazines, such as horse magazines, or over the internet. These competitions are often aimed at a section of the public who already have some knowledge of the animal that they are attempting to win and are therefore likely to prove responsible owners. Subsection (5)(a) makes provision for those types of competitions. We believe that the amendment would make their legality uncertain and could effectively prohibit them, which we are not in favour of doing.
	We are not aware of any welfare problems with this type of competition. One that we have seen in a popular horse magazine promoted welfare as it tested a child's knowledge of horse matters, including horse care. Subsection (5)(b) ensures that the person offering the magazine prize has reasonable cause to believe that a child under 16 who enters the competition has sought agreement from their parent or guardian. This safeguard is present in existing magazine competitions in that the application requires parental endorsement. The effect of the amendment would leave subsection (5)(b) as a stand-alone provision that could, for example, be applied to a stallholder at a funfair. In many cases, it would be totally unreasonable for the stallholder offering fish as a prize to know whether or not the parent or guardian is content for the child to win the goldfish. It would therefore be a backdoor method of trying to impose a total ban on giving pets as prizes. That is why some noble Lords thought that there was an attempt by the original promoters of the amendment to be anti-goldfish.
	On Amendment No. 12, the purpose of subsection (6) is to allow a prize to be offered in a family context; given, for example, by one family member to another as a reward or prize. The term "family" may refer to a relative but each situation can be different depending on individual circumstances. It could also be taken to include a partner of a child's parent. We have not restricted ourselves in defining "family", as this term will need to cover a range of situations. It most cases, it will be obvious where the term should be applied.
	There is no justification for the state to interfere in harmless arrangements between family members, especially where the person held legally responsible for the care of the animal on the child's behalf will, in most cases, be aware of the arrangements and have to have taken responsibility for ensuring that the welfare needs of the animals will be met. It is not a free for all just because it is a family. That is crucial. The welfare needs of the animal must still be met.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and to noble Lords who have supported the amendment. This matter has arisen in the past and is perhaps not of concern now, but it was raised with me not just by the International League for the Protection of Horses but by the RSPCA, which has said that it has put forward some cases in which the improvement notice has then been found not to be sufficient for the matter to go to court. I am grateful for the Minister's offer to look at the matter again. I do not have the details in black and white in front of me here, but it was raised by two representatives whom I think have a very good record in these matters.
	Having taken into consideration what the Minister has had to say, I highlight the question of how one knows when one notice ends and another begins. Presumably, one would be trying to improve on notice A. How will the person know when notice A is no longer applicable, because notice B has come along and altered it? There is a three-month period in the Bill to improve on the notice before any court action can take place.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, this is perhaps the weightiest of all the amendments with which I have to deal today. I am very grateful to the many people who have written to me directly or made comments about the present and future care of greyhounds. If I may, I shall start by thanking all of those—the lobby groups and the professional tracks—for coming back to me. I apologise for the fact that I shall be slightly lengthy, because we need to set the scene.
	Under the amendment, we return to a subject of great concern to me and many other noble Lords. The amendment represents a departure from our position in Committee, where we sought to allow self-regulation of the greyhound tracks to continue but to eliminate non-regulation in the industry by ensuring that the independent tracks signed up to the industry's regulation. The new amendment would ensure that the national regulations were rolled out within two years.
	There have been many developments in the field since Committee, not least the shocking exposé in the Sunday Times last August, in which it was estimated that one man alone had during the past 15 years killed 10,000 retired greyhounds, not letting the owners know what was happening to their hounds—some thinking that they were being rehoused when in fact they were being destroyed. It is not necessary for me to repeat that story; I am sure that many noble Lords have read it. It is one that horrified me and must have horrified other noble Lords.
	In the light of that evidence, and in the light of the Minister's words in Committee, I have revised my position. However, there are serious flaws in the operation of the current system. Where a trainer does not abide by the industry rules as set out by the National Greyhound Racing Club, his licence is revoked. However, there is nothing to prevent that trainer from continuing to train dogs or entering those dogs on independent tracks.
	The self-regulating greyhound industry is beset by conflicting priorities. The built-in conflict between welfare and profit has clearly resulted in the under-funding and under-management of the greyhounds' welfare. I accept that the NGRC has acted with the very best of intentions, and that the regulations that it has tried to bring in have helped, but there is still a long way to go. That conflict of interests and, I am sorry to say, the disgraceful lack of co-operation shown by some individuals in the industry make the current situation unworkable. Although I would have been happy to allow the NGRC to regulate the industry if it had proved itself able to keep an accurate audit of retiring greyhounds and to bring independent tracks within the approved industry, I regret that the evidence at this time persuades me that it cannot. However, my amendment would give it two years within which to do so. If the amendment were accepted, and if the industry managed to achieve what it is setting out to do, it may well have urged the industry to look further.
	I understand that the NGRC's rules of racing do not include a section on minimum welfare standards. Although elements of its rule book cover small welfare issues, there is no written code on the welfare of greyhounds. What is more, although betting points and entry fees are well represented, there is no official entry on track surface or layout. The amendment calls for national standards to help to reduce the number of dogs that are bred for racing, thereby reducing so-called wastage from the breeding of unsuitable dogs. It would ensure that veterinary attendance at meetings was mandatory, that there would be an effective and audited identification scheme for greyhounds, that greyhound kennels were licensed and that tracks were kept up to suitable standards for racing.
	I was heartened to read the Minister's words in Grand Committee, where he recognised that,
	"the regulated sector is making strong advances in welfare, but I do not think that anyone is saying that it is perfect".—[Official Report, 24/5/06; col. GC224.]
	That is right, and that is still my view. Great attempts at improving welfare have indeed been made, but the greyhound industry has clearly come far from its starting point. That starting point, however, was far below a reasonable standard of welfare.
	I hope the Minister recognises that my amendment would allow for the continued work of the Defra greyhound welfare working group, as it would allow for regulations to be made, highlights the essential areas for improvement, and would allow for a two-year roll-out. I was disappointed by the time scale for the work on greyhound welfare, as I was by the entire time frame for the codes of practice that will come to this House for approval after the Bill has been passed. I also remain far from satisfied that the next instalment will be next April.
	The RSPCA's contribution to us accepts that the Government intend to introduce regulations that will address these concerns, but it would welcome the Minister's confirmation that the regulations will provide scope for inspectors of tracks and trainers' kennels, that the Government will make a commitment to ensuring that the regulation of the industry is open and transparent, and that the public can have faith in it. Self-regulation is not acceptable to the RSPCA's organisations or to the public if the industry fails to do so. The RPSCA also believes that the inspection process should be audited to ensure compliance with procedures and the competency of the inspectors.
	It would be enormously helpful for all of us if, in addition to providing that clarification, the Minister might also consider another couple of items. We believe that additional safeguards need to be touched on. The current working group includes Hazel Bentall, a veterinary steward for the National Greyhound Racing Club. In addition to the points already raised, it would like to include drug testing, regular and random inspection of residential and racing facilities, comprehensive integration of all relevant records and a robust audit to ensure the effectiveness of regulation. I know that some of that is already included, but I should like clarification, which is why I have proposed this amendment. I do not belittle in any way the work that has been done. I would like the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in particular, to know that.
	The League Against Cruel Sports is very concerned and has added its weight. A letter to me states:
	"It is the neglect by the NGRC and the lack of action to address the concerns of 'main-stream' animal welfare organisations, which forms the basis of arguments against their continued self regulation and demonstrates the need for statutory regulation to be included on the face of the Bill".
	I am sure that the Pet Advisory Committee, which has also lobbied me, is known to many noble Lords. It says that,
	"there is no quality assurance of the inspection system and no data is provided to show that it is efficacious".
	It is also concerned about the re-homing of retired greyhounds. It says that the Retired Greyhound Trust, which is largely funded by the industry, re-homes 3,500 dogs each year. I understand that other welfare charities re-home a further 1,500 dogs. Naturally, some owners and trainers retain dogs as pets when their careers are over, but that number is not known because of the lack of data on registration and independent tracks. The trust believes that the figure is unlikely to be in excess of 3,000, although that is speculative and based on poor funding at the level of trainers. Therefore, when taking the figures together, it seems that the fate of some 5,000 to 8,000 greyhounds annually is unknown.
	With that in view, our amendment proposes, under Clause 10, to introduce licensing of all—I repeat, all—greyhound racing tracks through the appropriate national authority within two years of the passing of the Act. I beg to move.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I am of course aware of the words of the Companion on Peers who have,
	"an interest that is direct, pecuniary and shared by few others".
	As chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board, I have such an interest. As I have slept, eaten and breathed greyhound welfare—what a sad fellow I am—since I first raised the subject in the House in 2001, before I held my present position, I will do what I did in Committee: I will give the House my best advice, although I shall not vote on any amendment. I have taken the view of the House authorities, who say that that is appropriate.
	This will not be a party political speech. Indeed, if I were to take a party political position I should fervently hope that this amendment would be carried, so that the 3.5 million people who go greyhound racing each year could be told not to vote for the Tories because they want to do something that will ruin their sport. But I feel quite the opposite, and I hope that they will not. I will not be party political, but I cannot help teasing the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, who I like and admire, on her decision to table the amendment. She did not mention that the briefing on this comes from the League Against Cruel Sports (LACS) and that all noble Lords have seen it. LACS is the great campaigner for banning hunting with dogs, which noble Lords opposite—I totally agreed with them—were against. Now LACS is tally-ho against greyhound racing, so I am a little surprised that the noble Baroness has chosen to take up its cause, although I am delighted that we have the opportunity to debate it today. Although I have been teasing, I believe not only that this amendment would be bad for greyhound racing, but that it would also be totally ineffective and could spell death—I choose my words carefully—for thousands of greyhounds.
	We would not be debating this issue today if it had not been for Seaham and the Sunday Times. What happened there was disgusting—I and everyone in greyhound racing said so—but a few points should be put into proportion. The Sunday Times produced no evidence whatever for its allegation that 10,000 greyhounds had been destroyed over 15 years at Seaham. Even if there were such evidence, 15 years ago this was normally how a dog at the end of its life was destroyed. Even the RSPCA, we find out from local inquiries, is believed to use the Seaham facility to get rid of surplus dogs. Things have moved on, and it is great that they have, but we should not view the situation today with the benefit of hindsight. What was done was not illegal and, despite the best efforts of the press, no further Seaham has been found.
	This bears directly on the question before us. Those few people involved at Seaham who belonged to official greyhound racing have been fined four-figure sums and banned for life by the NGRC. Those who mock the NGRC as rather feeble might ponder those sentences. Indeed, if I may venture a guess, had a statutory national authority such as the amendment calls for imposed such sentences, they could well have been challenged in the courts as disproportionate—and perhaps successfully so. If your house is burgled, it would not be normal to call instantly for the abolition of the police, especially if the police later successfully identify the culprits and punish them severely, but that is what those who want self-regulation to be ended are effectively doing.
	The LACS brief to all Peers about progress refers to small improvements in welfare in recent years. Having been involved in the process, I cannot agree that they are small. Let me give three examples. The number of dogs re-homed by the Retired Greyhound Trust has doubled in five years. There was talk of a conflict between money and welfare but there is not one in practice because the trust's budget has gone up six times over that period. The NGRC is now enforcing, as it never did before, Rule 18, tracking what happens to dogs on retirement and making sure that euthanasia, which is always carried out by a licensed vet, is a last resort. Track surface improvements that cut track injuries by 50 per cent have been trialled at Poole. I could go on for several hours. There have been great changes.
	In one sense, the Seaham case is an opportunity to accelerate those changes and to get on with it. My organisation, the BGRB, has produced a radical document called Options for Change, which tackles head-on the problem at the essence of this: how to balance better the number of dogs coming into racing with the number that can be re-homed? That is what it mostly comes down to. We have an overall committee, which I chair, with sub-committees—the NGRC, the BGRB and the track promoters—working on the proposals that most affect them. I cannot pre-judge the conclusions of these committees but I believe that we will come out with a programme that will impress—perhaps even amaze—our critics.
	I think that the mechanics of who regulates are less important than the substance of the regulations. I thought the noble Baroness was a little confused in the sense that I have no problem with saying that we should have regulations in place by 2008—we are discussing with Defra even now what they should be—but her amendment provides for a state regulator. If we must have the argument about state regulators, let me go through a few bullet points. It will run totally contrary, as Defra has told us, to the Government's policy on better regulation generally. It will create a new state bureaucracy. It will drive greyhound racing back—I warn noble Lords of this from great knowledge—to its former secretive and defensive culture, from which I have been trying to get it to emerge. As greyhound racing will not "own" externally imposed welfare initiatives, it will resist them. In any case, the thought that some government inspectorate will get to the bottom of what is, in essence, a cottage industry beggars belief.
	Even if your Lordships were disposed to favour a new regulatory authority, would it be more sensible to put it on the face of the Bill or to use the powers in the Bill to establish it later? My view is that it would not be sensible to put it in the Bill.
	First, a great deal is going on which has a bearing on the shape of future regulation. There is Defra's greyhound welfare working group, of which I am a member, which includes both greyhound racing and welfarist representatives. There is the extremely important inquiry by the Associate Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare, chaired by Eric Martlew MP, to whom I pay great tribute for his hard work. The inquiry is due to report early in 2007. There is the sport's own Options for Change programme, to which I have already referred. It would surely be very odd to pre-judge that huge body of work driving things forward by determining, as the amendment would, a remedy now.
	Secondly, there is absolutely no agreement between the welfarists on what kind of regulatory authority they are proposing. The LACS amendment—good luck to it—wants a national regulatory authority. However, there is a separate submission from welfare members of the Greyhound Forum which advocates local authority regulation. That, too, is the position of the Pet Advisory Committee, to which the noble Baroness referred. To decide now, on Report in the House, which form of statutory regulation would be right is surely not sensible. It will require proper consideration. The Government have the powers to impose that regulation, should they choose to do so.
	Thirdly—and I speak personally here—let us think of the practical impact of the amendment. I have described the process which the greyhound racing industry has put in hand to tackle the problems. But suppose the House decides today to set up a new national authority. How am I to advise greyhound racing to proceed? To go ahead with our own programme of reform, which will entail considerable difficulty and expense, only for a new regulatory authority to pop up in a couple of years, no doubt to make its mark under a chairman who wants to show that he can sort out what I could not, and with its own programme of change? That could also entail considerable trouble and expense, incurred by people who did not know what they were doing.
	The amendment would not accelerate progress, which is what all of us want; it would stall progress for two years while the great bureaucracy was set up. If this amendment is accepted, impetus for change, which is sweeping through greyhound racing—it is about time, too—will be lost. A more sensible course, in outline, is surely this: the Bill gives Ministers the power to move to impose regulation. In those circumstances, let us allow the inquiries to go ahead and the changes that I am trying to get through proceed. Then, and only then, in a couple of years' time, we can take stock and decide whether the case for a national authority stands.
	Of course, it is open to Ministers to say at any time, not just 2008, "Sorry, greyhound racing industry, you're messing this up, we are not satisfied, and we are going to put in a regulator". That hangs over us and will no doubt help to concentrate some minds. But to go ahead now and set up a new bureaucracy to do the job that we are trying very hard to do ourselves, without giving self-regulation and the impetus behind it a chance, would do a grave disservice to the welfare lobby and those the noble Baroness wishes to help—the greyhounds. I beg the House not to accept the amendment.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the measures he has taken since his appointment and on the progress made. However, I am concerned about unregulated not regulated tracks. Would they fall into line with what is being proposed by the regulated tracks, particularly on the attendance of veterinary surgeons? We know that this is the difficult side of the sport. One wants to see the sport continue. We want to see increased safety for the animals, and we certainly want to see a lot more of them re-housed. However, I am extremely concerned about tracks that will go their own way—I do not think that the Minister will be able to speak about them today. I serve on the committee chaired by Eric Martlew, and we will bring forward our proposals, but we should do all we can to protect the welfare of the animals. As far as I can see, this amendment can only strengthen the industry. I hope that the Minister will tell us what effect the changes will have on unregulated tracks, which are of great concern to us all.

Lord Kimball: My Lords, I am particularly interested in subsection (2)(c) of my noble friend's amendment, on the,
	"identification of greyhounds employed for racing purposes".
	One reason why I was eased out from running the Greyhound Racing Fund was that I wanted to be absolutely certain that the dogs could be properly identified. At the moment, dogs are identified only by an earmarking scheme. I see from the fund's annual report that the amount of money spent on the earmarking scheme over the past 10 years has hardly varied. It is not a very satisfactory situation putting a mark in a dog's ear. It is very easy to adjust it at certain times. The proper way to do it would have been to chip all the greyhounds. When a greyhound goes to race it is weighed immediately as it has to come within a certain weight limit, so it would be perfectly possible to put something that could read its chip above the place where it is weighed. That could be done at the same time. It is very interesting that all dogs from Battersea Dogs & Cats Home are chipped, and I do not believe that those chips can have done anything but good, as they enable dogs to be properly identified. We must make a move in that direction.
	I turn to the other interesting thing about the amendment. If you look at the things on which the Greyhound Racing Board spends money, you can see that it is doing absolutely everything that the amendment asks for, including drug testing. Every dog is tested for drugs before it goes onto the track, so that is already there. All the veterinary surgeons are independent and attend the meetings. The licensing of kennels is very difficult to enforce, but the other real problem is the maintenance of tracks. In Ireland, there was a big programme to get all the tracks up to a certain standard. In this country, the existing 30 tracks have a very restricted standard. Then there are the 17 flapping tracks. What are we going to do about the tracks in Wisbech and other places that do not come under the National Greyhound Racing Club?
	So although the amendment may be desirable, a great deal of the work is already being done, and I would rather see it being done by the greyhound people rather than have something inflicted on them by the Government.

Lord Bilston: My Lords, I should like to make a couple of comments on what is a very important issue. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on raising the issue. The welfare issues for greyhounds are of great concern to people involved in greyhound racing. I can declare that I have owned greyhounds for more than 40 years and am a former chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Greyhound Group. I have had great involvement with greyhounds over many years. I pay special tribute to my noble friend Lord Lipsey for the stewardship and leadership he has provided over the past three years in his capacity as chairman of the British Greyhound Racing Board. He has done an excellent job.
	In essence what we are doing today is taking stock. I say on behalf of the greyhound group that we constantly monitor, observe and comment on issues affecting our national greyhound sport. I assure your Lordships that all the members of that group are happy and satisfied. We recognise that there are many issues, which have been raised today, that still need to be addressed—but they are being addressed. Progress is being made in every aspect, as was evidenced by the noble Lord who spoke just before me about what is being achieved.
	At this stage, I urge the House to recognise and value what progress has been made. Outside the isolated incident that took place in County Durham, which we all abhor and find totally disgusting, good progress is being made on the welfare of greyhounds. There is greater care by the owners of greyhounds, and the Retired Greyhound Trust is re-homing many more greyhounds. I assure your Lordships that in every registered greyhound stadium there is a greater awareness of, and interest in, the welfare of greyhounds and their re-homing after they have retired than I have ever known in the time I have been involved in greyhound racing. As your Lordships know, the sport gives a great deal of pleasure to many thousands of people, but at the base of it we need to make sure, as noble Lords have said today, that our greyhounds are happy and well treated and that, at the end of their racing life, they have a proper retirement and a proper home.
	I hope that we will allow my noble friend Lord Lipsey and his board, along with the National Greyhound Racing Club, to continue to do the work they are doing. If, as has been said, the Minister here or Ministers in the other place feel that there is a need for certain tightening up, I hope they will bring forward that kind of measure at the appropriate time. All I want to do today is assure your Lordships that things are not in any way as bad as they have been portrayed in that dreadful case recently, and that we have good reason to be thankful that progress is being made. I hope that your Lordships will all, at some stage in the next few months, go and take part in a lovely night out in greyhound racing, and see how well the animals are looked after. If I am there and I can find you a winner, I will do my very best to oblige.

Viscount Falkland: My Lords, we have heard of the good will of the noble Lord and all those involved with greyhound racing, along with their aspirations for the welfare of greyhounds, but neither he nor the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, have said anything to us about the scale of what we are looking at.
	The article in the Sunday Times drew to our attention the scale of redundant superfluous greyhounds. Unlike race horses, dogs have litters, which adds to the problem. It seems to me that the public are alerted to the fact that large numbers of dogs are bred uniquely for racing and that those that do not reach the appropriate standard will become redundant. The intention is to rehome them. Some people take them and they often make good pets, but the sheer number of dogs is huge. That has not yet been mentioned. There is no way in which any body, no matter how well disposed, will farm out the number of dogs which are no longer valuable as racing animals. A balance needs to be drawn here, as in everything. These dogs are bred to race. People gamble on those races. The same applies to horse racing. We have to accept that animals which no longer race and cannot be found homes will be destroyed. That is unacceptable to many people. We have to find a balance. I do not take a moral view on the issue. Nobody is suggesting that we should consider banning dog racing because of the horror of all these animals having to be destroyed because they are no longer of any use—far from it.
	What we have to decide today is whether the way of dealing with the matter suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, or that of the noble Baroness is right. I tend to go towards that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, because I believe that it would be less bureaucratic, but can his method deal with unlicensed tracks, as many noble Lords have said? Like other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on this. What he says will determine the way in which I shall vote, if there should be a vote.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she tabled her amendment as a reaction to the article in the Sunday Times. I am sure that the House is grateful to her for doing that and enabling this debate to take place, which has brought out serious welfare issues and has enabled us to hear from people who know a lot about the industry. I was interested to hear my noble friend Lord Falkland refer to certain parallels that the debate brought out for him.
	I appreciate the ironic smile of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, with regard to the issues mentioned in this debate and our debates on hunting. As regards wastage of dogs, what happens to hounds when they have finished drag hunting? Your Lordships debated at length what happened at the end of hounds' working lives. No doubt the same issues that we have debated apply in that case. My noble friend said that horse racing does not have to deal with certain issues because race horses do not breed to the same extent as dogs. We have to decide whether we should include this new clause in the Bill or whether we regard the Bill as being adequate to address greyhound racing and other animal issues.
	I understand the frustration that it may take slightly longer to go down the route proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, but I am sure that the noble Baroness is not promoting regulation in the Bill for every industry involving animals and entertainment. We are trying to draw up a broad framework. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will draw up a broad framework which encompasses not only greyhound racing but all those other sports that involve animals on which betting takes place.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I thought was very measured. I totally agree that the industry has the wrong impression and that there is a lot to be done. I felt that this would be a worthwhile debate at this stage; indeed, I think that, whether people have agreed or disagreed with me, important points have been made. Before I decide what I will do, let me just thank everyone who has contributed.
	I am well aware of the Defra group and the all-party group that is looking into the whole question of the future welfare of greyhounds. Again, I think that, whether people agree with me or not, we all want better welfare—that is what the debate is all about. The question is how we do it. I make those general points now and will come back to the Minister's response.
	I could say that the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, to hunting was a little below the belt, but I am quite used to having a belt that moves up and down. My amendment does not propose a ban in any way or form on greyhound racing. In fact, I hope that, even if the amendment has to be redone, it would give greater strength to the industry and make it go forward, so I thought it a little surprising, and a little unlike him, that the noble Lord decided to take that route.
	It was not me who raised this issue—my amendment followed on from the Sunday Times article—but the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will know very well that I wound up in a debate on greyhound welfare three or four years ago, so he cannot say that I am a latecomer to this business. I have been taking a very great interest in it for some time.
	I accept that the industry has made some improvements. I said that earlier and I complimented the noble Lord on what it had done, but it is too little and too late. I should have liked the industry to have moved further forward. However, that is for another day.
	I shall not repeat the comments of my noble friends Lord Lucas, Lady Fookes and Lord Onslow or the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, because I think that they were basically in favour of what I am trying to do in achieving better welfare. Therefore, I excuse myself from picking up on their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, raised the question of unregulated tracks—a point that I brought up in Committee. This is an enormous problem. Although the regulated industry says that it can cope, I am not convinced that it can; nor has it told us what action it will take. If the owners of unregulated tracks wish to continue to run greyhound racing in their own way, there is nothing at present to bring them back into the fold. So I am still very concerned about that.
	My noble friend Lord Kimball may be slightly more in favour of the status quo. His background knowledge is much greater than mine and I can understand his view, but I hope he will accept that I have grave concerns that the industry may not have moved far enough. However, he raised the very important question of identification—a matter that we have mentioned during different debates on farming and agriculture. I refer, in particular, to identification tags on the ears of sheep and cattle, which get ripped out, and microchipping might be one way of overcoming that problem.
	I think that the noble Lord, Lord Bilston, whom I also thank for his contribution, is slightly happier and more satisfied than I am with the current standing of the regulatory board. He acknowledged that there are many issues to be addressed. At this stage, there are sufficient to make me unsure that the board will achieve what I know some of its members wish to do. It is not that they do not know what they wish to do.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. If I table another amendment on this issue, perhaps he will add his name to it. He raised the very important issue of the problems caused by lack of data, which it would be an enormous help to have. I hope that I have not missed out people who have spoken. If I have, I apologise, as I greatly valued all contributions.
	I return to what the Minister said and the offer that he made. He said, as I and others have done, that at present the industry should be doing more. We all agree with that. The question is: how do we go about it? What do we do with the industry members that are not regulated? I am well aware of the work that is being done by the other groups and I do not wish to take issue with that. I am also aware that the Minister has been persuaded to give the welfare of greyhounds a higher priority. We have met him and his officials outside the Chamber and I accept what he said about the difficulties that have to be faced: there will be much work to be done on the Bill; a lot of codes of practice and regulations will be required; and there are timetabling pressured in that regard, let alone financial pressures. I am grateful to him and his colleagues for recognising that the welfare concerns relating to the greyhound industry should have been brought higher up the pecking order. That is an enormous help.
	I ask myself where that leaves me. I am grateful for, and encouraged by, the comments that have been made by noble Lords on all sides. I should like to look at Hansard very carefully when it is printed tomorrow to see whether there are issues that the Minister and I will have a chance to talk about to see whether we can do something before Third Reading, which is due to take place a week on Wednesday. I do not wish to be disruptive but it is an issue that has taken a long time to be addressed, and it has still not been fully and properly addressed. This is the time to say that the issue should be taken into consideration, before the Bill do pass.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, we are glad to see that the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. It is a beefed-out version of the amendment we tabled in Committee. Again, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, things have changed. The Government announced on 10 October that they have proposals for new measures; I am little surprised that they have not given us an amendment of their own. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it has not been appropriate for the Government to table an amendment at this time.
	The Government's proposals are in a similar vein to some of the questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It would be helpful to the House if they could clarify what was meant by the description of,
	"pet fairs that do not involve the sale of animals, or that do involve the sale of animals but not in the course of a business".
	We shall listen to the Minister's response. At present, however, I would support the noble Baroness.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I can give the commitments the noble Baroness asked for regarding the dates without reservation—if I am wrong, I will no doubt be told while I am on my feet. Our commitment is certainly by 2008, which is what she asked for. It has changed. There has been sustained parliamentary pressure on this issue. As I shall mention, there has been an intervention from the courts and we must take account of that.
	As has just been mentioned, on 10 October we made an announcement in the other place on our proposals on the regulation of pet fairs. As with all secondary legislation under the Bill, the proposals are still being formulated and must be fully consulted upon in due course. We now propose to prohibit the sale of animals to members of the public where this is part of a business at pet fairs. However, we also propose to make exceptions to this prohibition in the case of koi carp shows, racing pigeon sales and poultry sales. We propose that these types of events could be licensed by local authorities under regulations to be made under the Animal Welfare Bill.
	We propose to clarify in secondary legislation that those events where there is either no selling of pet animals to members of the public, or where there is selling of pet animals but not in the course of a business—such as hobbyists selling excess stock—can continue to take place without a requirement to be licensed. All events where there are animals present will be subject to the welfare offence whether or not they are specifically regulated by the local authority.
	The Government revised their original proposal to regulate the commercial selling of animals at pet fairs following a judgment made in the High Court on 14 June. The judgment was in relation to a judicial review in the case of Haynes v Stafford Borough Council about the issuing of a licence under the Pet Animals Act 1951 to the organisers of a pet fair. One of the findings of the judicial review was that local authorities could not issue licences under the 1951 Act to organisers of pet fairs where these events fell within the activity described in Section 2 of the 1951 Act and involved the sale of animals, as part of a business, to members of the public.
	The best place to deal with the regulations and prohibitions on the selling of pet animals is in secondary legislation. The alternative—placing such restrictions in the Bill—would be likely to lead to the sort of difficulties experienced under the Pet Animals Act 1951 that resulted, with its associated amendments, in the judicial review.
	This amendment contains a definition of a pet fair, and we would welcome the opportunity to look at this more closely when drafting the regulations. If the other question of whether there is a definition of commercialism needs to be looked at, the place to do so is in regulations. There will plenty of opportunity for this and, of course, full consultation on the relevant amendments. I hope that will satisfy the noble Baroness.

Baroness Byford: My Lords, I now turn to a group of amendments that includes a number of government amendments, but is headed by our Amendment No. 14 which requires that regulations promoting the welfare of animals under subsection (1) may be made only if the appropriate national authority is satisfied on the basis of scientific evidence in the public domain that those regulations are necessary to promote welfare.
	During the passage of the Bill, we have had long discussions about what may be in the codes. On some issues, we feel very strongly that the codes should be based on scientific evidence. This cluster of amendments addresses the current strategy for making regulations and codes of practice. Amendment No. 14 ensures that regulations promoting animal welfare are based on scientific evidence. The amendment includes a provision, similar to that in Clause 1(4), that regulations and changes to regulations should be made only when the appropriate national authority,
	"is satisfied, on the basis of scientific evidence"
	that they can be justified.
	I strongly believe that all consultations under the Bill and the evidence on which the appropriate national authority relies should be open and transparent. It is not enough for a national authority simply to state that it is satisfied that the evidence supports its actions without making that evidence available. Although Ministers give assurances that they or this Government will not abuse the powers given under this legislation, it has to stand the test of time. If it is 95 years before we have new legislation, we must be sure that this version is robust. So far, the Government have resisted amendments to rectify these defects without providing a suitable explanation for why they oppose them. The parameters for regulations in the Bill are important because it is an enabling Bill. We describe it as a skeleton Bill because most of the work is done in regulations and codes.
	That brings me to Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 21, 49 and 50. They ensure that codes of practice are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses. I know that the Minister is always careful to make sure that codes are relevant, but, with his many years of experience in the other place, he knows that we can talk on them, but cannot alter them. That is why we are encouraging the Government to accept using the affirmative resolution procedure. I thank the Clerks who advised me on this matter and said that while famous codes of practice, such as admissions codes for education, are subject to the negative resolution procedure, there is nothing to prevent the affirmative resolution procedure applying to new codes of practice. When he responds, I hope the Minister will clarify that for me.
	This is an extremely important point, and I was disappointed to see from the timetable the priority that the codes have. Since then, I have been grateful to the Minister for acknowledging that they should have been higher up the list, particularly the code on greyhounds. Some 22 sets of regulations are set to arrive in the next four years, and I hope this debate will stimulate some of the decisions about when they will be enacted.
	I return to Amendment No. 14, on which I have support from the Countryside Alliance and the National Farmers' Union. In the latter's submission to me, it states that regulations should be made only if Ministers are satisfied that there is scientific evidence. The submission states:
	"Indeed, in his letter of May 15 to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, Lord Rooker refers to these order-making powers as a fundamental element in the legislation to enable the law to be developed 'to reflect changing animal welfare practices and emerging scientific evidence' Without such a safeguard what is to prevent the introduction of regulations which are very demanding or restrictive on the owners of animals promoted by an emotional campaign ... for which there is scant scientific or veterinary justification?"
	That is an important point for us to consider.
	I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on his amendments and I beg to move.

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I should just like to comment that more and more provision is being made through secondary legislation. That is not really a debating point for the Bill, but it is something to flag up with the House that, as we will inevitably debate Lords reform in future—the powers and so on—the fact that we cannot amend secondary legislation is something that we will want to come back to, so that Bills such as this can pass with our confidence that we will receive a far more satisfactory response when regulations arrive on the Floor of the House.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, there is a strong case for considering the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we should be a proper revising Chamber, rather than what I think we are—more of a repetition Chamber presented with a fait accompli: we either vote down an order or accept it; and I do not remember the last time that the House voted down an order. There is a strong case for considering the powers of what would be a revising Chamber, but that is a matter for another day. I am sure that powers and competencies of a second Chamber will be widely debated in future.
	On Amendment No. 14, which was tabled in Grand Committee as part of a large group, we do not think it necessary to legislate in that way for something that we think should take place in practice anyway. The Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales would always take existing scientific evidence into account when framing regulations, in line with best practice in policy-making. In addition, the Government intend to make regulations only to the extent to which they are necessary to promote the welfare of animals for which a person is responsible.
	Emphasising the use of scientific evidence risks excluding some other important factors that should be taken into account when considering whether to legislate, such as social and economic consequences. One must consider the matter in the round. In answer to the latter point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, we are committed to evidence-based policy-making. Where there is overwhelming public concern about a particular issue, the evidential base may take account of the views of the public as well as any available scientific studies. The two examples of which I am reminded are the banning of veal crates and sow stalls, where you could argue whether the science was in favour of a change but the overwhelming public concern, the economic and social aspects, gave weight to the need to regulate, as we did. That must not be ruled out. In other words, looking at the science is not the be-all and end-all; there are other factors to be taken into account.
	Amendments Nos. 15 to 18, 22 to 25 and 51 all reflect commitments that I gave in Grand Committee and to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I trust they are well received. I believe I can be fairly brief. Amendments Nos. 15 and 25 introduce a duty to consult before introducing licensing and registration requirements under Clause 13, and before revoking a code of practice under Clause 17. Amendments Nos. 16 to 18 and 22 to 24 relate simply to drafting, so I shall not go into them in detail.
	Amendment No. 51 reflects an undertaking that we gave to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that there should be a parliamentary procedure for revoking and not replacing a code of practice, which would reduce the welfare protection available to those previously covered by the code. We do not think that that will happen often, if ever, but because it would be an exceptional occurrence, we certainly agree that parliamentary scrutiny of the decision would be appropriate.
	Amendments Nos. 19 to 21 would require codes of practice made under the Bill to be exercisable by statutory instrument and thereby approved by the affirmative procedure. Clause 59 makes it clear that the powers in the Bill to make orders or regulations are exercised by statutory instrument, which has the effect of applying the provisions of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946. Subsection (2) further requires that any regulations to extend the definition of an animal, to exempt mutilations, to promote welfare or to introduce licensing or registration schemes would have to be approved by the affirmative procedure described in the subsection. I should point out, however, that codes of practice are not legislation and cannot therefore be statutory instruments according to the meaning that the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 gives to them.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee also considered the negative procedure sufficient for its report on the Bill. In the past five years, the House has always accepted the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. There was one exception—I do not remember what it was and I do not recall whether I was at the Home Office or the ODPM at the time—where the House decided to go further. It was very unusual, however. By and large, the House accepts the committee's recommendations. I therefore hope that the government amendments are accepted, and that my answer to Amendment No. 14 in particular is acceptable.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, on that latter point I absolutely agree. I suspect I shall not be able to deal with it now, but I shall get it looked into. There is clarity—we are passing legislation—and the example given by the noble Countess would, I hope, not affect many people, but it would affect some. People should not be pushed from pillar to post. It is also important that the right language is used, because there are different departments and they are not always called the same in each local authority. The State Veterinary Service needs to be aware of that when it gives information to the public.
	I have just reread the part of my briefing headed "purpose and effect", which is always useful and sometimes even better than the speaking notes, because it explains the amendment in a more encapsulated way. That is useful particularly in a complicated area such as this one.
	Clause 49 defines the term "inspector" for the purposes of the Bill. An inspector will be an officer of either a local authority or an "appropriate national authority". In practice, an inspector of the appropriate national authority is likely to be a state veterinary service inspector. Only those inspectors and police constables will be able to exercise the powers of entry, search and seizure under the Bill.
	Clause 49(2) will require local authorities to have regard to any guidance issued by the appropriate national authority when they appoint their inspectors for the purposes of the Bill. We anticipate that this guidance will set out relevant criteria for appointing inspectors—qualifications, experience and so on—and may include a list of approved people who are considered suitable for such an appointment.
	Amendment No. 40A would require any inspector appointed under Clause 49 not to present evidence without the approval of that evidence by the State Veterinary Service. We are not clear, which is why we need to have some discussions about it, whether the amendment is suggesting that local authority officers cannot present evidence without the evidence being approved by the SVS, or just inspectors appointed by a national authority. In practice, under the Bill, an inspector will either be an officer of a local authority or an SVS inspector. A local authority could appoint someone on a temporary or part-time basis. Persons appointed on such a basis would be authorised officers of the local authority, and the authority would still be responsible for their actions.
	This amendment would result in a lot of unnecessary administrative work for the SVS. It is based on the false assumption that local authority inspectors do not have the sense to recognise when they need to obtain advice from a veterinary surgeon. We think it fails to understand that much of the work a local authority inspector does is well within the competency of a lay person and that input from a veterinarian is not needed. Where, in the course of an application to a court or a prosecution, evidence from a veterinarian is necessary, that will need to be obtained and presented to the court. In some cases it will be appropriate for that vet to be an employee of the SVS. In other cases, a private vet may be the right person. I hope that that gives clarification.
	We are currently looking at the protocol between the police, the RSPCA, local authorities and the State Veterinary Service. We do not anticipate any changes in how the law is currently enforced. We are satisfied that we have a clear perception of what their various roles are, notwithstanding the points I have made. I thought it was worth putting that on the record. In the short time available before Wednesday, or whatever day we have down for Third Reading, I will get some clarification, particularly on the example I was asked about by the noble Countess.

Lord Northbrook: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the operation of the tax credits system is satisfactory.
	My Lords, I am grateful to have the opportunity for this debate on whether the operation of the tax credit system is satisfactory. The new tax credits—the child tax credit and the working tax credit—were introduced in April 2003. The most recent parliamentary review of them by the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee was published in June this year. It is a cross-party document, and I have taken it as the best non-partisan source for my remarks tonight. I will cover three problem areas that are highlighted in particular: first, overpayment of the credit to claimants; secondly fraud and organised crime; and thirdly the way forward to improve the system.
	The Government state that the tax credit regime provides support for 6 million families and 10 million children. However, in 2003-04 about one-third of all tax credit awards paid—nearly 1.9 million awards—were overpaid at a cost of nearly £2 billion. In December 2005, the Paymaster General indicated that, but for reforms announced in the Pre-Budget Report 2005,
	"initial estimates had suggested that subsequent years' overpayments would have been of broadly the same level as in 2003-04".
	I am not certain if the overpayment figures for 2004-05 and 2005-06 have been published yet. Will the Minister give me those figures? For 2003-04, of the 1.879 million claimants who received overpayments, about 41,000 received overpayments of £5,000 or more. Half the total overpayments related to some 283,000 families, who had been overpaid by £2,000 or more.
	The National Audit Office explained why the design of tax credits necessarily results in overpayments. It said,
	"A tax credit award is provisionally based on a family's income and circumstances from the preceding tax year. The award is finalised after the end of the tax year once income and circumstances are known for certain. The final award will be lower than the provisional award where incomes increase, although the first £2,500"—
	now up to £25,000—
	"of any income increase is disregarded".
	However, the NAO also stated:
	"Further unforeseen overpayments have occurred".
	Full recovery of overpayments from 2003-04 is expected to take nearly five years. To date, the Government have written off some £95 million of overpayments and have made provision for a further £961 million to be written off eventually. The committee says that the factors cited by the Paymaster General and her officials as contributing to the causes of overpayments do not given the full reasons why the overpayments have arisen. The Paymaster General has referred only to those causes of overpayments that can be attributed to error by the claimant, or omission, or to the design of the tax credits regime, or a combination of those. The Paymaster General, in the committee's view, makes no reference to causes of overpayments that have arisen due to HMRC's own processes—for example, official error and information technology system error. Does the Minister agree with the committee's conclusions?
	The report goes on to state that recent research indicates that the tax credits regime, which is designed to deliver the correct amount of state assistance over the year as a whole, could be aligned more closely to the financial needs of those families who tend to and need to budget over a month or less, rather than the whole of a tax year. The committee goes on to say that it is obvious that HMRC cannot, however, as a whole take steps to improve the way that it administers tax credits without first identifying and developing a detailed understanding of the factors that cause overpayments and the extent to which each individual factor has contributed to the overpayments problem. It recommends that as a priority the Government should provide a detailed breakdown of as much of that information as is currently available. Does the Minister agree, and will he provide the House with the necessary information?
	The committee is clear that official error has been a cause of overpayments in a significant number of cases. The Paymaster General has said that no complete analysis exists of official error causing or contributing to overpayments. In my view, that is a significant gap in HMRC's understanding of the reasons that overpayments arise. Does the Minister not agree with the committee's view that if HMRC is to succeed in improving the administration of the tax credits regime, it first needs to understand what is going wrong within its own processes before it looks to problems elsewhere? Does he not agree also with the committee's argument that the Government should undertake a complete analysis of the incidence of official error and the extent to which that causes or contributes to overpayments, that they should publish that analysis, and that if they cannot carry out such analysis, they should explain why?
	The committee also believes that HMRC has failed to assess the contribution made by information technology error. It recommends that the Government undertake a complete analysis of the incidence of that and the extent to which it causes or contributes to overpayment, and that they publish that analysis. Does the Minister agree?
	The IT system delivered by EDS for running the new tax credits system was unsatisfactory in several respects, as was highlighted by the NAO's evidence to the committee. Yet, when the Government ended the contract with EDS in June 2004, an extraordinary agreement was made. While the Government were to be compensated for EDS's mistakes by £71.25 million, up to £26.5 million of that, in staged payments, would be contingent on EDS winning new business with the UK Government. But there was no guarantee that EDS would win sufficient business to trigger payment of the full amount.
	The committee strongly questioned the wisdom of an agreement that made the payment of compensation to the affected government department by the provider of that unsatisfactory service contingent on that provider winning other contracts with the Government. The committee's concern, rightly, is that contingent payments will influence future decisions by Government departments to award contracts. It believes that:
	"The agreement has the appearance of impropriety, if not the fact".
	Can the Minister say whether the full £26.5 million has been received and how many government contracts have been awarded to EDS since June 2004?
	On the recovery of overpayments, I agree with the committee that HMRC should not seek to recover either an excess payment made in the current year or an overpayment from the previous year until it has come to a decision on whether the excess should be recovered, in accordance with COP 26, which requires two questions to be answered satisfactorily: did HMRC make a mistake and, if so, was it reasonable for the claimant to think that his or her payments were correct? Why do the Government appear to be delaying implementation of the "pause before recovery" of an overpayment? In any case, is there not a statutory right of appeal to a tribunal, under Section 12 of the Social Security Act 1998? Does the Minister support calls from the voluntary sector and the ombudsman for the introduction of an appeal to an independent tribunal?
	On the subject of fraud, error and organised crime, I am concerned, as is the committee, that it is now over two years since the end of the 2003-04 tax year, yet HMRC has yet to establish the final levels of claimant error and fraud in the tax credits regime for that year. An interim figure of 3.4 per cent has been indicated, but the committee understands that the figure will be significantly higher.
	Apparently, organised criminals were able to make claims over the internet without proving their identity. However, HMRC's internal office concluded that there was a lack of comprehensive information to allow a robust analysis of the problem. Then, in December 2005, HMRC announced the closure of its tax credits portal, following attempts to defraud the tax credits regime by making claims through it. Those claims falsely used internal information held by DWP about its staff. The Paymaster General admitted in February 2006 that some 8,800 staff identities may have been stolen in 2003-04. Of those, 6,800 had been used in an attempt to defraud the tax credits regime in 2005.
	The Paymaster General gave details of another fraud, involving the use of identities stolen from Network Rail employees, stating that HMRC's investigations had resulted in at least 16,000 claims being stopped. The Paymaster General also disclosed that, from April 2004 to November 2005, HMRC intervened on approximately 56,000 incorrect claims where fraud was suspected, of which HMRC estimated that 19,500 arose as a result of organised attacks. From October 2004 to November 2005, HMRC identified and stopped over 22,000 tax credit claims in payment where organised fraud was suspected.
	Does the Minister have any updated figures of the loss to HMRC due to fraud, other than the figure of £2.7 million from the DWP fraud and the £15 million general figure from organised fraud as stated by the NAO in the committee report? Can he guarantee that there are no plans to reduce the number of staff in the tax credits compliance department of HMRC?
	My final subject on the report is the way forward. I welcome the fact that the Government are seeking to improve the operation of the tax credits regime by introducing a package of reforms. However, how can they be confident of their estimates of the overall costs of the package? For instance, they expect the package to be broadly revenue neutral, but how will this be when the disregard threshold is being increased from £2,500 to £25,000, which could prove costly?
	We on these Benches believe that HMRC should improve its service to claimants. We want the tax credits system to work properly so that those who are most deserving benefit from it. We want to make the system as user-friendly as possible so that no one will be put off by its complexity and we want its administration to be as efficient as possible. Therefore, I commend the Treasury Committee report and look forward to the Minister's response.

Lord Giddens: My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify what he just said? I am not sure whether he is arguing against me or not. I was arguing that negative income taxes tend not to work because basically they are disincentives to work, whereas tax credit systems work much better. If they are fine-tuned properly, they help to get a lot more people into work.

Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, for initiating this debate and all noble Lords who have spoken. I have had posed to me this evening far more questions than I could possibly answer if I had an hour in which to speak, but I will do my best.
	Tax credits help support 20 million people—6 million families and just over 10 million children. They have made a significant difference to the well-being of families and individuals across Britain. The take-up of tax credits is substantially higher than in any previous system of income-related financial support for in-work families who most need it. In the first year of tax credits, 93 per cent of families on incomes below £10,000 claimed their entitlement. That should be compared with a take-up rate of 50 per cent for the early years of family income supplement, 57 per cent for family credit and, at best, 65 per cent for working families tax credit. Take-up is around 80 per cent across the board and 93 per cent for those most in need.
	I reiterate that tax credits have delivered three major goals. They have improved incentives to work; they have reduced tax burdens for low-to-middle-income families; and they have dramatically reduced child poverty. Tax credits in the context of our wider economic stability have contributed since the spring of 1997 to an increase of more than 2 million in the number of people in work, with long-term unemployment reduced by some 450,000.
	Tax credits have reduced the tax burden. The latest OECD study shows a large fall in the tax burden for low-to-middle-income families as a result of tax credits. The burden on a single-earner couple with two children earning £21,000 a year has fallen from more than 17 per cent of gross earnings in 1997 to 9.8 per cent in 2004. That is the lowest rate of any G7 country. In the UK, a single-earner family with two children can now earn just under two thirds of the average wage before it starts to pay any net tax. Tax credits have helped ensure that the number of families with children paying no net tax has risen from under 2.5 million in 1998 to more than 3 million this year. They have made a major contribution to reducing child poverty, with 700,000 children lifted out of relative poverty since 1997. More than 1.8 million fewer children are in absolute low-income families than in 1997 on a before-housing-costs basis. I believe that that is an achievement that we would all applaud. My noble friend Lord Giddens made another important point about tax credits. He said that they delivered support in a way which is non-stigmatising.
	The introduction of tax credits has been a huge undertaking for HMRC. It is the biggest single change to the welfare state since the Beveridge reforms. Problems with the IT system in the early days created difficulties, but HMRC has made significant progress. There is, however, more to be done. Last May, the Paymaster General set out a series of administrative measures designed to reduce the risk of errors, to clarify communications with tax credit recipients and to improve procedures for recovering overpayments. Since then, significant progress has been made in each of these areas. Building on the progress so far, major software releases were successfully implemented last November and this April, delivering real improvements in operational performance, not to mention in the service to claimants.
	Since the introduction of tax credits, HMRC has worked closely with the voluntary and community sector to improve its service to claimants. For example, responding to feedback from the voluntary and community sectors, it has revised award notices to include a clearer summary of what will be paid and, for the first time, an explanation of how this has been calculated. HMRC has been working with the voluntary and community sector also to make claimants aware of their entitlement to tax credits; for example, with the tax credits take-up resource pack, which was provided by citizens advice but funded by HMRC. Building on the progress made on administration in Pre-Budget Report 2005, the Government announced a package of further improvements to the tax credits system.
	This struck a balance between providing more certainty and stability for families, particularly those on lower incomes, and maintaining the flexibility to respond to changes in income and family circumstances.
	A number of noble Lords touched on the issue of end-year adjustments, which are inevitably an integral part of a flexible financial support system. Payments are based on household incomes which can, of course, change during the course of the year. Payments are therefore subject to adjustment during the course of the year and, if necessary, at the end of the year once these changes in incomes are known.
	National statistics show that year-end adjustments leading to an overpayment have fallen by one-fifth from 2003-04 to 2004-05. Improved performance of the tax credits system has meant that fewer overpayments are now caused by IT or administrative error. The statistic of 97.75 per cent accuracy in processing and calculating awards was quoted by my noble friend Lady Hollis. HMRC expects to recover the majority of the money overpaid, except where there has been a mistake by HMRC and it is not reasonable to expect the claimant to have noticed the error.
	The national statistics relate to 2004-05, and so do not show the impact of measures announced at the time of the 2005 Pre-Budget Report to give greater certainty to families while maintaining flexibility to respond to changing circumstances. Once these come fully into effect the level of year-end adjustments are expected to fall by a further third in future years. Eliminating the need for adjustments altogether would require a move to a fixed system in which eligibility was based on the previous year's income and circumstances—a system where, as a result, flexibility would be diminished. This flexibility to respond to changing circumstances is a key part of the system, especially in today's modern labour market where in any single year 3 million people change jobs and 200,000 men and women who move into new or better jobs see their family income rise by more than £10,000.
	Noble Lords raised a number of questions. The noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, pressed me on a whole raft of questions relating to the Treasury Select Committee report, and I hope that he will forgive me if I do not deal with all of those in detail. The Government have not responded formally to that report but will do so shortly, and perhaps we might have another debate in due course when those responses have been made formally.
	I was asked about overpayment awards for 2004-05. The amount currently calculated is £1.8 billion. The figures for 2005-06 are not yet available as the claims have not yet been finalised.
	On our confidence about the costings relating to the £25,000 disregard, we have two years' data on from 2003-04 and the 2004-05 overpayments, which help us to a better estimate of the costs involved. I refer the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, to the letter written to the Public Accounts Committee, which sets out some of the background to that.
	The noble Lord asked, too, about the causes of overpayment. The main causes are income rises, families overestimating income falls, provisional payments being made on out-of-date information and delays in reporting changes of circumstances.
	On the issue of error and fraud, figures published on 11 July gave HMRC's estimate of error and fraud in the tax credits system for 2003-04, which was of course several years ago. The information on organised fraud shows that HMRC successfully stopped the majority of claims identified as being submitted by organised fraudsters. Some £409 million of fraudulent claims have been prevented, and there is no evidence of new major organised frauds comparable to those involving organisations such as DWP and Network Rail, which were reported to the House in January. It is planned to increase the number of compliance staff by 190.
	My noble friend Lady Hollis raised the issue of the large family premium. The Government recognise that children in large families are at a disproportionate risk of being poor. The 2004 child poverty review set out a long-term aspiration to improve the financial support available to large families. The introduction and increase in the per child element of the child tax credit has disproportionately benefited larger families and, compared to 1998-99, the risk of poverty has fallen by 33 per cent for large families compared to 23 per cent overall. Nevertheless we will continue to consider options to go further, including the introduction of large family unlimited tax credits, along with equalising child benefits, as others have suggested, and increasing the child element.
	I am afraid I do not have any good news about the position on financial support for grandparents. I think my noble friend is aware of the situation. It is one thing where there are formal childcare arrangements in place, but it is difficult for a Government to involve themselves in commercialising arrangements within families. It is important to differentiate between situations where the Government are paying, such as the carer's allowance, and those where you would be encouraging payments between family members. There would be difficulties if it were judged that grandparents were not felt able to fully undertake their responsibilities.
	The issue of regional differences is an interesting one. I think it has been considered recently in relation to the minimum wage. The Government felt it was not the right way to go. Marginal tax rates, which a number of noble Lords raised, are high but effective marginal rates of over 70 per cent have fallen by half a million since 1997.
	I admire the ingenuity of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on the dividend tax credit. Forgive me if I do not rehearse the debates we have had on that before, but I am sure we will have ample opportunities to do so in the future. The cost of administering the system was £467 million in 2005-06, which must be something like 0.25 pence in the pound.
	The noble Viscount made reference, as did others, to the Tax Commission, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. We would say that transferable tax allowance is an untargeted measure that is of most benefit to those on higher incomes. Indeed, policies have increased the personal allowance by £7,185 by abolishing the 10p starting rate, which, it was suggested, would cost £4.6 billion. An increase in the personal allowance disproportionately benefits the better-off on higher marginal tax rates and is therefore regressive. Changes to tax allowances cannot reduce tax liability below zero and therefore fail to support the poorest. The combined effect of the new higher income tax allowance, the proposed abolition of the 10p starting rate, the new 20p basic rate and the abolition of tax credits for hard-working families higher up the income scale would mean that of the poorest quarter of households only one-third would see any benefit from the package and two-thirds would not get a penny, while every single household in the wealthiest quarter would benefit. We simply do not see that as the right way to go.
	My noble friend Lord Giddens raised issues arising from the Joseph Rowntree report, which suggests a basic rate of income tax of 37 per cent to pay for changes to the system. If anything, we would say the tax system they have designed is very much like the current system except with higher rates, and we have a manifesto commitment not to raise basic or higher rates of income tax.
	We have touched upon issues of year-end adjustments. I quote again the figure that each year at least 200,000 men and women move into new and better jobs and see their family income rise by more than £10,000. The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, in particular, talked about the IFS report. In response I say: look at the evidence. Employment, which my noble friend Lord Giddens touched on, is at record levels, with 28 million people in work. The UK's employment rate is the highest of the G7 economies bar the US and Canada. Since 1997, New Deal programmes, which are part of the strategy, have helped reduce long-term youth unemployment and long-term unemployment by over two-thirds. Working tax credit provides financial support on top of earnings and, together with the national minimum wage, helps to improve work incentives and relieve in-work poverty. Lone parent employment has risen by 11.3 percentage points to 56.6 per cent, the highest on record. There are now over 1 million lone parents in work, over 300,000 more than in 1997.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made a number of points on marginal tax-rate issues and on the Chancellor's approach to those matters. I have no doubt that a Chancellor who is about tackling poverty and improving incentives to work and who wishes to reduce tax burdens for low-to middle-income families would make an excellent Prime Minister, as I am sure that he will.
	I have run out of time. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for not having dealt with all the points that have been raised. I conclude by saying that tax credits and economic stability have helped to increase the number of people in work by more than 2 million since spring 1997. Since 1997, long-term unemployment has reduced by 450,000. Tax credits have improved work incentives, reduced the tax burden on low-to middle-income families and helped to reduce child poverty dramatically. Of course, we should remain vigilant to the administrative challenges that these bold measures create, but we should celebrate the outcome of the policy and the substantial improvement it has made to the lives of many.